Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

To bettet depict the 'dual-edged' nature of plasmas, I suggest the following:

1. 'On a hit roll of 1, the bearer is slain after all shots from this weapon has been resolved' to 'on a hit roll of 1, the bearer is slain.'

2. 'On a hit roll of 1, the bearer is suffers a motal wound after all shots from this weapon has been resolved' to 'on a hit roll of 1, the bearer suffers a mortal wound.'

With the implementation of this rule, it'll be paramount resolving each shot of plasmas individually per shot, per model.

As for the potentially higher penalties for plasmas with higher rates of fire (i.e. 1d3, 2d6)they may be reduced in points somewhat.

I don't like it because it allows down the game. Plasma already requires me to take to much time rolling and checking five colours

I don't really get what you're changing. As the rules are now, you need to roll per model anyway.

Shots cease to fire once you roll 1, and no further shots are resolved.

I.e. you elect to double tap overcharged plasma.
You roll 1 on the first shot, including reroll and modifiers.
The model is slain, and the second shot may not be rolled for.

Alternatively, for random no. shot weapons that was translated from the blast weapons, a single to hit roll can be used for all the shots.
This rationale is from the fact that the RNG nature of the 8th ed blast weapons already reflects the old mechanics of scatter dice (with the exception that at least 1 shot always hits in the new system). By forcing another round of to hit roll adds another layer of dice rolling where it's already been translated:

Old blast weapon mechanics:
1. pick a target model
2. roll scatter dice (1 roll, 2 dice)
3. resolve how many are under the blast - all models under the blast is "hit", do not roll dice to determine whether the model is hit.
4. resolve damage/wound/save roll.

New blast weapon mechanics:
1. pick a target unit.
2. roll to determine number of shots (1 roll, Xd3/6 dice)
3. roll that many (Xd3/6) dice to determine how many shots hit.
4. resolve damage/wound/save roll.

There are significantly more dice rolls involved in resolving blast weapons in 8th ed.

Oh.

While I like where you're going, it seems clunky and slows the game down needlessly.

I'd prefer to change all Overcharge rules to only do a MW on a natural 1, but then up to points of Plasma Guns to 17-19ppm (while lowering Metla cost to 13ppm at the same time)

-

 skchsan wrote:
To bettet depict the 'dual-edged' nature of plasmas, I suggest the following:

1. 'On a hit roll of 1, the bearer is slain after all shots from this weapon has been resolved' to 'on a hit roll of 1, the bearer is slain.'

2. 'On a hit roll of 1, the bearer is suffers a motal wound after all shots from this weapon has been resolved' to 'on a hit roll of 1, the bearer suffers a mortal wound.'

With the implementation of this rule, it'll be paramount resolving each shot of plasmas individually per shot, per model.

As for the potentially higher penalties for plasmas with higher rates of fire (i.e. 1d3, 2d6)they may be reduced in points somewhat.

This is called the Overcharged fire mode. It's optional.

There needs to be more reasons to use Overcharged for this to really be necessary.

Mortal wound on a natural roll of 1 is where I think plasma should be.

No re-rolls, no modifiers you roll a 1 to hit you take a mortal.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 skchsan wrote:
To bettet depict the 'dual-edged' nature of plasmas, I suggest the following:

1. 'On a hit roll of 1, the bearer is slain after all shots from this weapon has been resolved' to 'on a hit roll of 1, the bearer is slain.'

2. 'On a hit roll of 1, the bearer is suffers a motal wound after all shots from this weapon has been resolved' to 'on a hit roll of 1, the bearer suffers a mortal wound.'

With the implementation of this rule, it'll be paramount resolving each shot of plasmas individually per shot, per model.

As for the potentially higher penalties for plasmas with higher rates of fire (i.e. 1d3, 2d6)they may be reduced in points somewhat.

This is called the Overcharged fire mode. It's optional.

There needs to be more reasons to use Overcharged for this to really be necessary.

I'm confused-are you saying Overcharged is NOT worth using?

Another option I like is to change Overcharge to do D3 MWs rather than slay the model outright.
This makes the rule consistent to allow larger models to not be deleted on a single 1 or have a special version of Overcharge.

It also creates interesting "spill over" since MWs are never lost.
Imagine a Tac Marine rolling 3 MWs, he dies, but 2 other Tacs die in the explosion too.
That ups the risk of Overcharging, which is too easily circumvented now.

-

 JNAProductions wrote:

I'm confused-are you saying Overcharged is NOT worth using?

I'm saying that people aren't going to Overcharge if they know they'll have significant amounts of penalties and they don't need to slay the model.

Galef wrote:Another option I like is to change Overcharge to do D3 MWs rather than slay the model outright.
This makes the rule consistent to allow larger models to not be deleted on a single 1 or have a special version of Overcharge.

It also creates interesting "spill over" since MWs are never lost.
Imagine a Tac Marine rolling 3 MWs, he dies, but 2 other Tacs die in the explosion too.
That ups the risk of Overcharging, which is too easily circumvented now.

Then we need to see similar things on every other army, because as it stands it's really just Plasma weapons that can remove the bearer.

Just change plasma to 1 mortal per 1 rolled. Also make the mortal only occur on a natural 1.

There - plasma is fixed. The weapon doesn't need to be nerfed in the slightest...have you seen a disintegration cannon?
-Costs less than plasma
-Has greater range than plasma
-Has has 50% more damage potential than plasma
-Doesn't overcharge...

Conversely, have you see the Tau plasma gun?

 Xenomancers wrote:
Just change plasma to 1 mortal per 1 rolled. Also make the mortal only occur on a natural 1.

This is fair, but I cannot stress enough the fact that Plasmas and Meltas have inversed points costs. Plasma should be more expensive than Melta due to the versatility and reliability of Plasma.

-

Bharring wrote:
Conversely, have you see the Tau plasma gun?

Yeah it's totally garbage lol. However - their Ion weapons (which are actually more comparable to plasma guns because they have the overcharge mechanic) already have the 1 mortal per roll of a 1. They do not slay vehicals outright - just 1 wound. I think across the board though - on hit mechanics like tesla/overcharge/ect should not be affected my to hit modifiers (positively or negatively).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Galef wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Just change plasma to 1 mortal per 1 rolled. Also make the mortal only occur on a natural 1.

This is fair, but I cannot stress enough the fact that Plasmas and Meltas have inversed points costs. Plasma should be more expensive than Melta due to the versatility and reliability of Plasma.

-

I am not sure about the price dynamics actually. Plasma seems like it's in about the right place (if the negative modifier issue was fixed) Melta is overcosted though for sure.

No plasma nerfs while dissy cannon exists. Melta is an 6-8 pt weapon currently. Not 13. Not 17.

So this thread begs the question as to which plasma weapons are an issue, and which platforms are carrying the issue weapons.

Martel732 wrote:
No plasma nerfs while dissy cannon exists. Melta is an 6-8 pt weapon currently. Not 13. Not 17.

I don't know any dark eldar players arguing for disintegrators to remain un-nerfed. Most of us expect them to go up 5 or 10 points, which is probably about where they should be. In the meantime, let's not ban discussion of mostly-unrelated weapons just because the dissie needs to be addressed.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
So this thread begs the question as to which plasma weapons are an issue, and which platforms are carrying the issue weapons.

I saw a bunch of scion squads and occassional chaos terminator squads with them about a year ago. After the big FAQ made deep striking alpha strikes less appealing, I kind of stopped seeing them. Hellblasters were big for a while too, but I haven't seen them at tournaments locally in quite a while. I assume that's due to knights and disintegrators being so good at killing them. Aeldari being able to stack to-hit penalties is probably a factor too.

@skchsan:
Do you feel that there's a mechanical problem with plasma that would be solved by your proposal, or do you just feel plasma should be more lethal to its wielder from a fluff-perspective? While part of me likes the idea of having less incentive to overcharge plasma (those who use plasma usually make sure they have a reroll 1's ability handy), I'm not sure I like the idea of an adeptus astartes having a 1 in 6 chance of killing himself every time he wants to do 2 points of damage to a tank.

And when Terminators took a hit from the whole Wartime thing, suddenly it wasn't a problem.

So really the issue is Scions there. Maybe the issue is...Scions?

"I don't know any dark eldar players arguing for disintegrators to remain un-nerfed. Most of us expect them to go up 5 or 10 points, which is probably about where they should be. In the meantime, let's not ban discussion of mostly-unrelated weapons just because the dissie needs to be addressed"

I'm not banning discussion. I just think Imperial plasma is a non-issue at this point compared to other weapons in the game. I doesn't help that grav, flamers, and melta are all awful. I don't live in fear of imperial plasma outside of scions. But scions are just what marines should be. Other marines with plasma? Who cares? That's what? 26 ppm?

Martel732 wrote:
"I don't know any dark eldar players arguing for disintegrators to remain un-nerfed. Most of us expect them to go up 5 or 10 points, which is probably about where they should be. In the meantime, let's not ban discussion of mostly-unrelated weapons just because the dissie needs to be addressed"

I'm not banning discussion. I just think Imperial plasma is a non-issue at this point compared to other weapons in the game. I doesn't help that grav, flamers, and melta are all awful.

Fair.

Martel732 wrote:
I don't live in fear of imperial plasma outside of scions. But scions are just what marines should be.

Out of curiosity, what makes Scion plasma particularly scary? Is it the ppm? Deep strike? Extra shots on sixes? All of the above?

Yeah just what the "one turn takes more than ever" 8th edition needs. Even more slowing down.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
And when Terminators took a hit from the whole Wartime thing, suddenly it wasn't a problem.

So really the issue is Scions there. Maybe the issue is...Scions?

And Scions took a hit when they added the Ballistic Skill 3+ points costs to Plasma and Meltaguns.

Scions were a weird case of being just the right amount of killy with the right amount of points costs for a suicide unit and they don't ruin Regimental Traits for whatever list they're in. I was surprised nobody ever ran them as a Patrol to get an additional shot at half range...I wasn't surprised to hear about people having their Cadian/Catachan/Steel Legion Officers issuing Orders to them(which isn't allowed).

Martel732 wrote:
"I don't know any dark eldar players arguing for disintegrators to remain un-nerfed. Most of us expect them to go up 5 or 10 points, which is probably about where they should be. In the meantime, let's not ban discussion of mostly-unrelated weapons just because the dissie needs to be addressed"

I'm not banning discussion. I just think Imperial plasma is a non-issue at this point compared to other weapons in the game. I doesn't help that grav, flamers, and melta are all awful. I don't live in fear of imperial plasma outside of scions. But scions are just what marines should be. Other marines with plasma? Who cares? That's what? 26 ppm?

Overall, I agree that the main reason Plasma seems to be the only Imperial special weapon is due to the others being sub-par. The simplest change would be to swap points cost with the other choices. Meltas should be <13ppm and Plasmas should be about 16-17ppm to shift the balance, than drop the points for Grav and flamers by 2-3ppm
The goal should be to make all choices viable and encourage variety within lists.
To Martel's point, it's the same problem Dissies and Dark Lances have. Even if they were costed exactly the same, Dissies would cover far, far more situations than DLs. Yet DLs are, for some reason, more expensive.
I'd propose the exact same change as Meltas & Plasmas for Dissies & DLs: Swap the points. Dissies, as-is, should be >20ppm, while DLs should be <20ppm.

For some reason, GW feels d6 Damage weapons with good AP have a higher value than weapons with multiple shots. We all know that isn't the case in a dice game.

-

 Weazel wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
I don't live in fear of imperial plasma outside of scions. But scions are just what marines should be.

Out of curiosity, what makes Scion plasma particularly scary? Is it the ppm? Deep strike? Extra shots on sixes? All of the above?

It's a combination of all the above and then compare to marine plasma options.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, melta isn't worth 13 pts. More like 8.

 Weazel wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
I don't live in fear of imperial plasma outside of scions. But scions are just what marines should be.

Out of curiosity, what makes Scion plasma particularly scary? Is it the ppm? Deep strike? Extra shots on sixes? All of the above?

I really don't think they are an issue anymore - they went up in price and lost the ability to deepstrike turn 1. They are a solid choice but not OP.

With the prevalence of neg to hit modifiers (which increase your chance of slaying yourself) plasma is actually completely noncompetitive. It actually needs to be "buffed" not in the sense that it needs to do more damage - it's damage is fine. It needs to not be killing the bearer though. Other comparable weapons don't do that.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Weazel wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
I don't live in fear of imperial plasma outside of scions. But scions are just what marines should be.

Out of curiosity, what makes Scion plasma particularly scary? Is it the ppm? Deep strike? Extra shots on sixes? All of the above?

I really don't think they are an issue anymore - they went up in price and lost the ability to deepstrike turn 1. They are a solid choice but not OP.

With the prevalence of neg to hit modifiers (which increase your chance of slaying yourself) plasma is actually completely noncompetitive. It actually needs to be "buffed" not in the sense that it needs to do more damage - it's damage is fine. It needs to not be killing the bearer though. Other comparable weapons don't do that.

Add a valkyrie to 3x MT CMS w/ plasmas and you hvae the same effect as pre-beta tactical reserves.

Yeah - that is a little broken - more of an issue of valks and their kin needed a rules update to get with it like the rest of the game. The only thing stopping this from being REALLY strong is the fact that the valk is so gakking awful.

To be fair, Dissies are Plasma.

Bharring wrote:
To be fair, Dissies are Plasma.

Yeah - without any of the disadvantage of plasma. They don't kill your own models - they have great range - and they have high enough number of shots to deal with infantry and vehicles alike. Most hilarious - they cost less too.